[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17923-17929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8455]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 99-NM-105-AD; Amendment 39-12703; AD 2002-07-09]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-
100C, 727-200, and 727-200F Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to all Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-
200, and 727-200F series airplanes, that currently requires repetitive
inspections to find cracking of the lower skin panel at the lower row
of fasteners in certain lap joints of the fuselage, and repair, if
necessary. This amendment limits the applicability of the existing AD,
adds certain repetitive inspections, revises certain compliance times,
and adds certain modifications. This amendment is prompted by the FAA's
determination that, in light of additional crack findings, certain
modifications of the fuselage lap joints are necessary. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to find and fix fatigue cracking of
the fuselage lap joints, which could result in sudden fracture and
failure of the lower skin lap joints, and rapid decompression of the
airplane.
DATES: Effective May 17, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 17, 2002.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, PO Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walt Sippel, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
227-2774; fax (425) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 99-04-22,
amendment 39-11047 (64 FR 7774, February 17, 1999), which is applicable
to all Boeing Model 727, 727-100, 727-200, 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F
series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 12,
2001 (66 FR 36516). The action proposed to continue to require
repetitive inspections to find cracking of the lower skin panel at the
lower row of fasteners in certain lap joints of the fuselage, and
repair, if necessary. The action also proposed to limit the
applicability of the existing AD, add certain repetitive inspections,
revise certain compliance times, and add certain modifications.
[[Page 17924]]
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Clarify Compliance Time Paragraph (d)(2)
Several commenters request that paragraph (d)(2) of the proposed
rule be changed to include the phrase ``whichever is later'' at the end
of the specified compliance time.
The FAA agrees with the commenters, as ``whichever is later'' was
inadvertently omitted from the paragraph (d)(2) of the proposed rule.
We have clarified the compliance time in paragraph (d)(2) of the final
rule to state, ``Accomplish the modification prior to 55,000 total
flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever is later.''
Credit for Original Issue of Service Bulletin
One commenter asks that credit be given for actions done in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, dated July
27, 2000. Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, including
Appendix A, dated March 15, 2001, was cited in the proposed rule as the
appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of certain
actions.
The FAA agrees, as there are no major changes between the original
issue and Revision 1 of the service bulletin. We have inserted a new
Note 5 in the final rule that gives credit for inspections done per the
original issue of the service bulletin. Subsequent notes have been
renumbered accordingly.
Editorial Changes
Editorial changes to the proposed rule as requested by one
commenter are specified below, and the FAA responses follow:
A statement should be added to the final rule specifying
that it supersedes the actions specified in AD 99-04-22. As written,
compliance is required with both the old AD and the new proposed rule,
when obviously the new rule supersedes the old rule.
We do not agree. The preamble of the proposed rule states that it
is a supersedure of AD 99-04-22, and throughout the preamble the
reasons for superseding that AD are discussed at length. No change to
the final rule is necessary in this regard.
The heading preceding paragraph (a) of the proposed rule
should be changed from ``Repetitive Inspections'' to ``Inspections'' or
``Initial and Repetitive Inspections.'' The existing heading implies
the initial inspections are not included when in fact they are.
We agree and have changed the heading for paragraph (a) of this
final rule to ``Initial and Repetitive Inspections.''
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule omits the inspection
method. The proposed AD should add the method as follows, ``Inspections
should be accomplished per Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, including Appendix A,
dated March 15, 2001.''
We agree and have changed paragraph (a) of the final rule to refer
to Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin
for the inspection method. In addition, for clarification, we have
cited Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' for the location of the tables
identified before the reference to Paragraph 1., Planning Information,
as Section 1.E. is a subsection within the Planning Information.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule also referenced only Paragraph 1.,
Planning Information and has been changed for clarification. Paragraph
(d) of the final rule also has been changed for clarification to refer
to Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin
for accomplishment of the modification and to cite Section 1.E.,
``Compliance.'' Additionally, paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule has
been changed for clarification to read, ``For airplanes that have
accumulated 35,000 or more but fewer than or equal to 54,999 flight
cycles on the effective date of this AD.''
Paragraph (a)(2) specifies the wrong type of inspection.
The reference to a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection is
incorrect. The correct reference should be a medium frequency eddy
current (MFEC) inspection.
The FAA agrees that the reference to a HFEC inspection is
incorrect, and we have changed paragraph (a)(2) of the final rule to
specify a MFEC inspection.
Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the proposed rule can be
combined to simplify the proposed rule without changing the intent.
This new paragraph would list the applicability as, ``. . . the
airplane has accumulated fewer than 45,000 total flight cycles . . .''
Both paragraphs have identical inspection methods, but the
applicability is different. Instead of stating that airplanes from 0 to
35,000 flight cycles need inspection per method ``A,'' and airplanes
from 35,000 to 45,000 flight cycles need the same inspection, the
proposed AD should combine the paragraphs to say airplanes from 0 to
45,000 flight cycles need inspection per method ``A.''
The FAA does not agree. Paragraph (b) of the final rule specifies
lap joints identified in Table H of Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
the service bulletin. Table H has different inspection procedures for
airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 35,000 total flight cycles,
and airplanes that have accumulated 35,000 or more, but fewer than
45,000 total flight cycles. We have inserted a new Note 4 in the final
rule that explains this. Subsequent notes have been renumbered
accordingly.
Paragraph (b)(3) has a typographical error. The reference
to ``fewer than 54,999 flight cycles'' should be ``fewer than 55,000
flight cycles.'' As written, airplanes with 54,999 flight cycles are
omitted because paragraph (b)(4) includes airplanes with 55,000 flight
cycles and up.
The FAA agrees that airplanes having 54,999 total flight cycles
were inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule and we have revised
paragraph (b)(3) of the final rule accordingly.
The heading preceding paragraph (d) of the proposed rule
should be changed from ``Modification/Inspections'' to ``Modification/
Post Modification Inspections.'' This change helps the reader to
understand the differences between the inspections in paragraphs (a),
(b), and (d) of the proposed rule without having to read the details to
determine those differences.
The FAA agrees and we have changed the heading for paragraph (d) of
this final rule to ``Modification/Post-Modification Inspections.''
As a final note, the commenter states that it is not
affected by the ``Concurrent Modifications'' section specified in the
proposed rule that affects airplanes modified per a supplemental type
certificate.
Terminating Action
One commenter states that the proposed rule needs a statement that
accomplishment of the modification terminates the pre-modification
inspections per paragraphs (a) and (b) in the modified area only. It is
clear the post-modification inspections are required.
The FAA partially agrees. The modification required by paragraph
(d) of the final rule terminates the repetitive inspection requirements
of paragraph (b) of the final rule only. The repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (a) of the final rule are not terminated because
the modification in paragraph (d)
[[Page 17925]]
applies to Model 727-200 series airplanes specified in Table H of the
referenced service bulletin only. Paragraph (d) of the final rule has
been changed to specify that accomplishment of that paragraph
terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (b) of this
final rule.
Freighter Airplanes
One commenter's statements on the subject of freighter airplanes
affected by the proposed rule and the FAA responses follow:
There is no differentiation made between Boeing purpose-
built freighters and passenger airplanes in the proposed rule, and
there is no lap joint modification provided for in the referenced
service bulletin for Model 727-100C or -200 freighter airplanes.
The FAA agrees that no differentiation is made between freighter
and passenger airplanes in the proposed rule. Although the commenter
makes no request for a specific change to the final rule, for
clarification, freighter airplanes differ from passenger airplanes in
that the fuselage skin is thicker in certain areas and the operational
characteristics are not the same, and the FAA received no reports that
multiple site damage (MSD) is an emerging problem for freighter
configurations. For these reasons, no modification is required at this
time for freighter airplanes. To assure awareness of an emerging MSD
problem, the FAA is requiring that the freighter airplanes continue to
be inspected.
A low frequency eddy current inspection (LFEC) is required
by the proposed rule on the lower lap joint skin at 300-cycle intervals
after the airplane reaches the 55,000 flight cycle mark. The commenter
feels this inspection requirement is unduly restrictive, given that
there is no terminating action for the freighter models.
We infer that the commenter wants the LFEC inspection requirement
removed; however, we do not agree that the repetitive inspection
interval for freighter airplanes is at 300 flight cycles for airplanes
that have accumulated 55,000 or more total flight cycles. This
requirement is for passenger airplanes, as specified in paragraph (b)
of the final rule, which references Table H in the referenced service
bulletin. Paragraph (b) of this final rule has been changed to specify
that it is applicable only to Model 727-200 series airplanes.
The proposed AD should provide terminating action for the
LFEC inspection at 300 flight cycles on the Model 727-100C series
airplane in the form of a lap joint modification.
As stated previously, the modification specified in the final rule
is for Model 727-200 passenger airplanes only, as specified in
paragraph (d) of this final rule. Should MSD emerge as a problem, the
FAA may consider further rulemaking action which could include a
requirement for a modification.
Out-of-Service/Retired Airplanes
One commenter states that, based on its current Model 727 series
airplane utilization versus retirement plan, it anticipates that it
will only have one airplane subject to the modification, and that
airplane will be taken out of service six days before the compliance
deadline. Another commenter states that it has already incorporated the
external LFEC inspection on its airplanes, as specified in the proposed
rule; and plans to retire all Model 727 series airplanes from service
before the internal inspections or modifications would be required by
the proposed AD.
The commenter makes no specific request to change the final rule.
The FAA advises that, should any of these airplanes be returned to
service after the compliance period ends, the actions in the final rule
must be done before the first flight.
Compliance Plan
One commenter paraphrases paragraph (c) of the proposed rule and
notes that the compliance plan required by that paragraph must be
submitted for each airplane. The commenter states that this paragraph
will result in the generation of submittals to the FAA which will
quickly become useless, given the dynamics of airplane maintenance
planning and scheduling. The commenter adds that the FAA states in the
preamble of the proposed rule that the compliance plan is necessary to
verify that all operators will be able to meet the deadlines imposed by
the proposed AD. The commenter states that no lasting purpose is served
by this information since operators are not required to submit
revisions to the compliance plan. Additionally, the commenter notes
that it is the operator's responsibility to maintain its airplanes in
compliance with the requirements of any AD, and recommends that
paragraph (c) of the proposed rule be deleted.
One commenter states that, although not convinced that the
compliance planning in the proposed rule is the appropriate method to
resolve compliance conflicts with complex ADs, it does not object to
the compliance plan.
We partially agree with the commenters as follows:
We do not agree to delete paragraph (c) of the final rule. As
specified in the preamble of the proposed rule, we recognize that doing
the lap joint modification will require a lengthy maintenance visit,
within a relatively short compliance time. This makes it necessary for
operators to do compliance planning to ensure that when the compliance
deadline is reached all the required actions have been done on all
affected airplanes. Although plans and schedules can change over time,
a compliance plan ensures that the operator is aware of the complexity
of the actions required by this final rule at the start rather than at
the end of the compliance period.
We agree that the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of the
final rule can be changed to exclude operators that have previously
done the modification required by paragraph (d) of the final rule. For
operators that have not yet done the modification, we have changed the
requirement to provide dates and maintenance events (e.g., letter
checks) to submitting only estimated dates. Paragraph (c) of the final
rule has been changed accordingly.
Change Paragraph (k)
One commenter notes that paragraph (k) of the proposed rule
provides details regarding FAA approval for repairs to cracks. The
commenter adds that the text in that paragraph indicates that the
repair method is to be approved by the Manager of the Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), but the ``Differences'' section in the
preamble of the proposed rule indicates that, ``. . . the repair of
those conditions be accomplished per a method approved by the FAA, or
per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved
by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) who has
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings.''
Therefore, paragraph (k) does not reflect the same repair approval as
the ``Differences'' section. The commenter recommends that paragraph
(k) be changed to add the repair approval by a Boeing Company DER.
The FAA does not agree with the commenter. The differences section
of the proposed rule specifies that the disposition of ``certain''
repair conditions be accomplished by a method approved by the FAA or a
Boeing Company DER. Paragraph (e) of the final rule specifies repair of
cracking or corrosion per a method approved by the FAA or a Boeing
Company DER because the repair of damaged structure is within the scope
of a Boeing DER delegated authorization. FAA Notice
[[Page 17926]]
8110.72, ``Structural Designated Engineering Representative (DER)
Approvals of Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) to Airworthiness
Directives and AD Mandated Repairs,'' states that, ``Type certificate
holder DER can be delegated to approve repairs when the FAA determines
that the intent of the AD was to restore the airplane, found to have
damaged structure, into compliance with the airplane type certification
basis or other defined airworthiness standard.''
Paragraph (k) of this final rule requires concurrent modification
of the airplane structure of supplemental type certificate (STC) and
type certificate holders. Because not every STC holder has a company
DER that is authorized to approve repairs, and independent DERs working
for the STC holder are not Boeing DERs and have limited data in their
possession, we cannot delegate AMOC authority to those DERs. Therefore,
we cannot include in paragraph (k) the same provision that is specified
in paragraph (e) of the final rule. No change to the final rule is
necessary in this regard.
Allow for External LFEC Inspection
One commenter states that its experience with accomplishing the
internal inspection indicates certain areas are not accessible for the
MFEC inspection. The commenter adds that it performs an external LFEC
inspection in these areas, although the referenced service bulletin,
the existing AD, and the proposed rule do not account for this. The
commenter recommends that these documents should allow for continued
external LFEC inspections in these limited areas of restricted access.
The FAA infers that the commenter is referring to the MFEC
inspections required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of the final rule. The
service bulletin and the proposed rule do allow for repetitive external
LFEC inspections in certain areas; however, the commenter does not
specify the areas where it performs the external LFEC inspections in
lieu of the MFEC inspections. Although we recognize the commenter's
concerns, the commenter did not clarify or provide substantiating data
in its request. The FAA may approve a request for an alternative method
of compliance under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of the final
rule if data are submitted to substantiate the commenter's request. No
change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 900 Model 727 series airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 700
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
The inspections that are currently required by AD 99-04-22 take
approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $480 per
airplane.
The FAA estimates that the inspections required by this AD will
impose the following costs, given an average labor rate of $60 per work
hour:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs per
Service information and inspection method Work hours inspection
cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing SB 727-53A0222--External LFEC.......... 16 $960
Boeing SB 727-53A0222--Internal Detailed and 120 7,200
MFEC (Passenger Airplanes)...................
Boeing SB 727-53A0222--Internal Detailed and 40 2,400
MFEC (Cargo Airplanes).......................
AEI SB 00-01.................................. 12 720
PEMCO SB 727-53-0007.......................... 12 720
ATS SB 727-001................................ 12 720
Federal Express SB 00-029..................... 12 720
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA estimates that, during the 10-year period after issuance of
the AD, worldwide operators will be required to modify 360 Model 727
series airplanes. The modification required by the AD takes
approximately 1,200 work hours to accomplish, at an average labor rate
of $60 per work hour. The worldwide cost impact of the required
modification is estimated to be $37,413,000 over 10 years, or an
average of $3,741,000 per year. The highest impact year is the first
year after issuance of the AD; an estimated 56 Model 727 series
airplanes would require modification in that year. The affected Model
727 airplanes operated by U.S. operators comprise approximately 78
percent of the total worldwide costs. Therefore, the highest cost
impact of the modification in any given year is estimated to be
$4,527,000 for U.S. operators.
The compliance plan that is required by this AD takes approximately
24 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of
$60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
compliance plan on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,008,000, or
$1,440 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
[[Page 17927]]
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for
this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may
be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-11047 (64 FR
7774, February 17, 1999), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), amendment 39-12703, to read as follows:
2002-07-09 Boeing: Amendment 39-12703. Docket 99-NM-105-AD.
Supersedes AD 99-04-22, amendment 39-11047.
Applicability: Model 727 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing
Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, including Appendix A,
dated March 15, 2001, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (l)(1)
of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect
of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To find and fix fatigue cracking in the lower skin panel at the
lower row of fasteners of the fuselage lap joints, which could
result in sudden fracture and failure of the lap joints, and rapid
decompression of the airplane; accomplish the following:
Initial and Repetitive Inspections
(a) Do either an external low frequency eddy current (LFEC)
inspection to find cracking, or both internal detailed and medium
frequency eddy current (MFEC) inspections to find cracking or
corrosion, in the lower skin panels of the lower row of fasteners of
the fuselage lap joints per Part I of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1,
including Appendix A, dated March 15, 2001. Do the applicable
inspection at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD on the lap joints identified in Tables
A through H and J through N of Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Paragraph 1, Planning Information, of the service bulletin. Except
as provided by paragraph (b) of this AD, after doing the applicable
initial inspection, repeat that inspection at the intervals
specified in Tables A through G or J through N of the service
bulletin.
(1) At the latest of the times specified for the initial
inspection in Tables A through H (for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5
airplanes), or Tables J through N (for Groups 3 and 4 airplanes), as
applicable, of Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the service
bulletin, except where the compliance time in the service bulletin
specifies a compliance time interval based on ``the release of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the interval
specified in the service bulletin ``after the effective date of this
AD.''
(2) Within 600 flight cycles after the last LFEC inspection or
7,000 flight cycles after the last MFEC inspection, if any, is
accomplished in accordance with AD 99-04-22, amendment 39-11047.
Note 2: Groups 1-5 are defined in the effectivity section of the
service bulletin.
Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to find damage,
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate
access procedures may be required.''
(b) For Model 727-200 series airplanes: The repetitive
inspection intervals for lap joints identified in Table H of Section
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Paragraph 1, Planning Information, of
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, including Appendix
A, dated March 15, 2001, decrease with increasing flight cycles.
Perform the repetitive inspections listed in Table H of the service
bulletin at the thresholds and intervals specified in paragraph
(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) of this AD, as applicable.
Note 4: Table H of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision
1, has different inspection procedures for airplanes that have
accumulated fewer than 35,000 total flight cycles, and airplanes
that have accumulated 35,000 or more, but fewer than 45,000 total
flight cycles.
(1) If, at the time of the most recent inspection required by
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, the airplane has accumulated fewer
than 35,000 total flight cycles: Perform LFEC inspections at
intervals not to exceed 600 flight cycles, or detailed internal
visual and MFEC inspections at intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight
cycles.
(2) If, at the time of the most recent inspection required by
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, the airplane has accumulated 35,000
or more, but fewer than 45,000 total flight cycles: Perform LFEC
inspections at intervals not to exceed 600 flight cycles, or
detailed internal visual and MFEC inspections at intervals not to
exceed 7,000 flight cycles.
(3) If, at the time of the most recent inspection required by
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, the airplane has accumulated 45,000
or more, but fewer than 55,000 total flight cycles: Perform detailed
internal visual and MFEC inspections at intervals not to exceed
2,000 flight cycles.
(4) If, at the time of the most recent inspection required by
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, the airplane has accumulated 55,000
or more total flight cycles: Perform LFEC inspections at intervals
not to exceed 300-flight-cycle intervals.
Note 5: Inspections done prior to the effective date of this AD
per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, dated July 27, 2000,
are considered acceptable for compliance with the applicable action
specified in this amendment.
Compliance Plan
(c) For airplanes on which the modification required by
paragraph (d) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date
of this AD: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD,
submit a plan to the FAA identifying a schedule for compliance with
paragraph (d) of this AD. This schedule must include, for each of
the operator's affected airplanes, the estimated dates when the
required actions will be accomplished. For the purposes of this
paragraph, ``FAA'' means the Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI)
for operators that are assigned a PMI, or the cognizant Flight
Standards District Office for other operators. Information
collection requirements contained in this regulation have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
Note 6: Operators are not required to submit revisions to the
compliance plan required by paragraph (c) of this AD to the FAA.
Modification/Post-Modification Inspections
(d) For Model 727-200 series airplanes: Do the modification
listed in Table H of Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Paragraph 1,
Planning Information, of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222,
Revision 1, including Appendix A, dated March 15, 2001; per Part II
of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, at the
threshold specified in paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this
AD, as applicable. Within 35,000 flight cycles after doing the
modification, do the post-modification inspections for cracking in
the skin, per Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
service bulletin.
[[Page 17928]]
Accomplishment of this paragraph terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (b) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 35,000 total
flight cycles on the effective date of the AD: Accomplish the
modification prior to 48,000 total flight cycles.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 35,000 or more, but
fewer than 55,000 total flight cycles on the effective date of the
AD: Accomplish the modification prior to 55,000 total flight cycles,
or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever is later.
(3) For airplanes that have accumulated 55,000 or more total
flight cycles on the effective date of the AD: Accomplish the
modification within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD.
Repair
(e) If any cracking or corrosion is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (a), (b), or (d) of this AD: Before further
flight, repair per Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1,
including Appendix A, dated March 15, 2001. Where the service
bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, repair
per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis
of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company DER who has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a
repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as
required by this paragraph, the approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
Concurrent Modifications
(f) For Model 727-200 series airplanes modified per supplemental
type certificate (STC) SA1368SO or SA1797SO: Concurrent with the
modification of the fuselage lap joints required by paragraph (d) of
this AD, do the inspection for cracking of the lower row of
fasteners in the lower skin of the lap joints, and the modification
specified in Aeronautical Engineers Inc. Service Bulletin AEI 00-01,
Revision A, dated May 7, 2001, per the service bulletin.
(g) For Model 727-200 series airplanes modified per STCs
SA1444SO and SA1509SO: Concurrent with the modification of the
fuselage lap joints required by paragraph (d) of this AD, do the
inspection for cracking of the lower row of fasteners in the lower
skin of the lap joints, and the modification specified in PEMCO
Service Bulletin 727-53-0007, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2001, per
the service bulletin.
(h) For Model 727-200 series airplanes modified per STC
SA00015AT: Concurrent with the modification of the fuselage lap
joints required by paragraph (d) of this AD, do the inspection for
cracking of the lower row of fasteners in the lower skin of the lap
joints, and the modification specified in Aircraft Technical
Service, Inc., Service Bulletin ATS 727-001, dated May 7, 2001, per
the service bulletin.
(i) For Model 727-200 series airplanes modified per STC SA176SO:
Concurrent with the modification of the fuselage lap joints required
by paragraph (d) of this AD, do the inspection for cracking of the
lower row of fasteners in the lower skin of the lap joints, and the
modification specified in Federal Express Corporation Service
Bulletin 00-029, Revision A, including Attachment A, dated May 16,
2001, per the service bulletin.
(j) Within 2,200 flight cycles after doing the applicable
modification specified in paragraph (f), (g), (h), or (i) of this
AD, do the post-modification inspection for cracking in the skin per
the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 1, below. Repeat
the applicable inspection after that at intervals not to exceed
2,200 flight cycles. Table 1 follows:
Table 1.--Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Bulletin Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeronautical Engineers Inc. Service May 7, 2001.
Bulletin AEI 00-01, Revision A.
Aircraft Technical Service, Inc., May 7, 2001.
Service Bulletin ATS 727-001.
Federal Express Corporation Service May 16, 2001.
Bulletin 00-029, Revision A, including
Attachment A.
PEMCO Service Bulletin, 727-53-0007, June 6, 2001.
Revision 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair
(k) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (f), (g), (h), or (i) of this AD: Before further flight,
repair per the applicable service bulletin as provided in Table 1 in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Where cracks exceed the limits provided in
the service bulletin, and the bulletin specifies to contact the
provider of the service bulletin for repair instructions, prior to
further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle
ACO. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (j) of this AD: Before further flight, repair per a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. For a repair method to be
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph,
the approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(l)(1) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit
their requests through an appropriate FAA PMI, who may add comments
and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously per
AD 99-04-22, amendment 39-11047, are approved as alternative methods
of compliance with this AD.
Note 7: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
Special Flight Permits
(m) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Incorporation by Reference
(n) Except as provided by paragraphs (c), (e), and (k) of this
AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with the following
service bulletins, as applicable:
Table 2.--Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Bulletin Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeronautical Engineers Inc. Service May 7, 2001.
Bulletin AEI 00-01, Revision A.
Aircraft Technical Service, Inc., May 7, 2001
Service Bulletin ATS 727-001.
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, March 15, 2001.
Revision 1, including Appendix A.
Federal Express Corporation Service May 16, 2001.
Bulletin 00-029, Revision A, including
Attachment A.
PEMCO Service Bulletin 727-53-0007, June 6, 2001.
Revision 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, PO
Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
[[Page 17929]]
Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
Effective Date
(o) This amendment becomes effective on May 17, 2002.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 2, 2002.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-8455 Filed 4-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P